EBI-探索AI增强银行监管的法律框架

EBIWorkingPaperSeries2023–

no.140Alessio

Azzutti/Pedro

MagalhãesBatista/Wolf-GeorgRingeNavigatingtheLegalLandscapeofAI-EnhancedBankingSupervision:ProtectingEUFundamentalRightsandEnsuringGoodAdministration27/04/2023Electroniccopyavailableat:/abstract=4430642The

European

Banking

InstituteThe

European

Banking

Institute

based

in

Frankfurt

is

an

international

centre

for

banking

studies

resulting

from

the

jointventure

of

Europe’s

preeminent

academic

institutions

which

have

decided

toshare

andcoordinatetheir

commitments

andstructure

their

research

activities

in

order

to

provide

the

highest

quality

legal,

economic

and

accounting

studies

inthefieldof

bankingregulation,

bankingsupervision

andbankingresolutioninEurope.

TheEuropeanBanking

Institute

is

structuredto

promote

the

dialogue

between

scholars,

regulators,

supervisors,

industry

representatives

and

advisors

in

relation

toissues

concerningthe

regulation

and

supervision

of

financial

institutions

and

financialmarkets

from

alegal,

economic

andanyotherrelatedviewpoint.

The

Academic

MembersofEBIarethe

following:1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.UniversiteitvanAmsterdam,Amsterdam,The

NetherlandsUniversiteitAntwerpen,

Antwerp,

BelgiumAlma

MaterStudiorum

–UniversitàdiBologna,Bologna,ItalyAcademiadeStudiiEconomicedin

București(ASE),Bucharest,RomaniaUniversitätBonn,Bonn,

GermanyTrinityCollege,Dublin,IrelandTheUniversityof

Edinburgh,Edinburgh,

ScotlandGoethe-Universität,

Frankfurt,

GermanyFrankfurtSchoolof

Finance&Management,Frankfurt,Germany10.

UniversiteitGent,

Ghent,Belgium11.

Helsinginyliopisto(Universityof

Helsinki,Helsinki,

Finland)12.

UniversiteitLeiden,

Leiden,

The

Netherlands13.

KULeuvenUniversity,Leuven,Belgium14.

UniversidadeCatólicaPortuguesa,

Lisbon,Portugal15.

UniversidadedeLisboa,

Lisbon,Portugal16.

UniverzevLjubljani

(Universityof

Ljubljana,

Ljubljana,Slovenia)17.

QueenMaryUniversityof

London,London,

UnitedKingdom18.

UniversitéduLuxembourg,Luxembourg19.

UniversidadCarlosIII

deMadrid,

Madrid,

Spain20.

UniversidadAutónomaMadrid,

Madrid,

Spain21.

UniversidadComplutensedeMadrid/CUNEF,Madrid,

Spain

22.

Johannes

GutenbergUniversity

Mainz(JGU),

Mainz,Germany23.

UniversityofMalta,Malta24.

UniversitàCattolicadelSacroCuore,

Milan,Italy25.

ΠανεπιστήμιοΚύπρου

(Universityof

Cyprus,Nicosia,

Cyprus)26.

RadboudUniversiteit,

Nijmegen,TheNetherlands27.

BINorwegianBusinessSchool,

Oslo,Norway28.

UniversitéPanthéon-Sorbonne(Paris1),Paris,France29.

UniversitéPanthéon-Assas

(Paris2),

Paris,France30.

ΠανεπιστήμιοΠειραιώς

(UniversityofPiraeus,Athens,

Greece)31.

StockholmsUniversitet

(University

ofStockholm,Stockholm,Sweden)32.

TartuÜlikool

(UniversityofTartu,Tartu,Estonia)33.

Universität

Wien,

Wien,Austria34.

UniwersytetWrocławski(Universityof

Wrocław,Wrocław,

Poland)35.

UniversitätZürich

(Universityof

Zürich,Zürich,Switzerland)SupervisoryBoardofthe

EuropeanBankingInstitute:ThomasGstaedtner,PresidentoftheSupervisoryBoardof

theEuropeanBanking

InstituteEnricoLeone,

ChancelloroftheEuropeanBanking

InstituteEBI

Working

Paper

SeriesEBI

Working

Paper

Series

are

a

project

of

the

European

Banking

Institute

e.V..

EBI

Working

Paper

Series

represent

aselection

of

academic

researches

into

the

area

of

banking

regulation,

banking

supervision

and

banking

in

general

whichhavebeendraftedbyprofessors

and

researchersofEBIAcademicMembersandselectedbytheEditorialBoard.Editorial

BoardWolf-GeorgRinge(chair),ThierryBonneau,

Guido

Ferrarini,

Christos

Hadjiemmanuil,

PeterMülbert,IgnacioTirado,Eddy

Wymeersch©

2016-2023

European

Banking

Institute

e.V.,

Frankfurt

am

Main

Germany

(“EBI”)

The

European

Banking

Institute

is

a

eingetragener

Verein

(e.V.)under

German

law

(§

21

of

German

Civil

Code)

registered

in

Frankfurt

am

Main,

Germany.

EBI

is

a

non-profit

organisation

established

exclusively

anddirectly

for

charitable

purposes

"gemeinnützig"

within

the

meaning

of

"Steuerbegünstigte

Zwecke"

in

the

German

tax

administration

code("Abgabenordnung").Allrightsreserved.Electroniccopyavailableat:/abstract=4430642NAVIGATING

THELEGAL

LANDSCAPE

OF

AI-ENHANCED

BANKING

SUPERVISION:PROTECTING

EU

FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS

AND

ENSURING

GOOD

ADMINISTRATIONAlessio

Azzutti*PedroMagalhães

Batista†and

Wolf-Georg

Ringe‡AbstractBanking

supervisors

worldwide

recognise

the

pressing

need

to

harness

frontier

technologies

suchas

artificial

intelligence

(AI),

particularly

machine

learning

(ML),

to

enhance

their

efficiency

andanalytical

capabilities.

The

European

Central

Bank

(ECB)

has

similarly

acknowledged

theopportunitiesofferedbysupervisorytechnology(SupTech)andestablishedadedicatedSuptechHub.

However,

the

adoption

of

automated

technologies

in

banking

supervision

raises

complexquestions

of

legality,

transparency,

and

accountability,

particularly

for

the

ECB,

as

a

publicinstitutionwithintheEU’sdemocraticorderfoundedontheruleoflaw.This

study

investigateshow

the

useof

AI

systems

to

augment

supervisory

decision-making

mayimpact

EU

fundamental

rights,

particularly

the

right

to

good

administration.

To

this

end,

we

firstdefine

the

notion

of

good

administration

in

the

context

of

banking

supervision,

and

explore

whatit

entails

for

the

ECB

from

legal

and

ethical

perspectives.

We

then

analyse

the

potentialimplications

of

AI-enhanced

banking

supervision

for

good

administration

and

examine

how

thelattermayinformtheintegrationofAI/MLintosupervisoryprocessesandprocedures.Drawing

inspiration

from

the

proposed

EU

AI

Act,

we

develop

a

normative

framework

forregulating

AI

systems

based

on

specific

risks

to

good

administration

associated

with

differentapplications.

Our

framework

prioritises

transparency,

auditability

and

accountability

requirementsto

ensure

that

future

AI-driven

banking

supervision

is

aligned

with

the

principles

of

goodadministration.Overall,

this

study

contributesto

thegrowingliterature

on

the

legalimplications

ofAI

and

ML

adoption

by

financial

supervisors,

underscoring

the

importance

of

a

balanced

approachthatupholdsfundamentalrightswhileharnessingthebenefitsoftechnologicalprogress.Keywords:artificialintelligence;machinelearning;bankingsupervision;ECB;EUadministrativelaw;goodadministration;

fundamentalrights;judicialreview.JELCodes:

G18,G28,G38,K22,K42,O33,O38.*

Research

Associate,

Centre

for

Banking

&

Finance

Law,

National

University

of

Singapore;

PhD

candidateinLaw,UniversityofHamburg.†

Lecturer

in

Commercial,

Corporate,

and

Banking

Law,

University

of

Leeds;

PhD

candidate

in

Law,

GoetheUniversityFrankfurt.‡

Professor

of

Law

&

Finance

and

Director

of

the

Institute

of

Law

&

Economics,

University

of

Hamburg;VisitingProfessor,StanfordLawSchool.We

are

grateful

to

the

European

Central

Bank

for

awarding

us

a

scholarship

under

the

ECB

Legal

ResearchProgramme

2022,

and

for

their

kind

support

and

assistance

throughout

the

research

process.

We

alsothank

the

anonymous

ECB

officials

who

provided

us

with

constructive

feedback

on

earlier

versions

of

thiswork.Electroniccopyavailableat:/abstract=4430642WorkingPaperVersion(April2023)TABLEOFCONTENTSI.INTRODUCTION

.....................................................................................................

1ARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE,

SUPTECH,

ANDEU

BANKINGSUPERVISION

....................

4A.

SupTechmeetsBankingSupervision

................................................................

4B.

AIinBankingSupervision:OpportunitiesandChallenges

...............................

10GOODADMINISTRATIVEBEHAVIOURINEU

BANKINGSUPERVISION........................

18II.III.A.

The

Supervisory

Mandate:

From

Institutional

Powers

to

Daily

Operations

andDecision-MakingProcedures...........................................................................

19B.

GoodAdministrationandSupervisoryProcedures...........................................

23C.

GoodAdministrationasaStandardforJudicialReview...................................

28D.

GoodAdministrationasaBasisforSupervisoryLiability

.................................

32ENSURINGGOODADMINISTRATIONINAI

BANKINGSUPERVISION...........................

33A.

TheimplicationsofAIforGoodAdministration

................................................

34B.

EUSecondaryLawRequirementsonAIsystems............................................

43A

NORMATIVEFRAMEWORKFORTRUSTWORTHYAI

INBANKINGSUPERVISION.......

55A.

Risk-basedRegulationofAISystems..............................................................

56B.

LegalRequirementsonTransparency

.............................................................

58IV.V.VI.

CONCLUSION

.....................................................................................................

62ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................

64iElectroniccopyavailableat:/abstract=4430642WorkingPaperVersion(April2023)I.INTRODUCTIONThe

dawn

of

Artificial

Intelligence

(AI),

particularly

its

subfield

of

Machine

Learning

(ML),in

public

services

has

opened

up

a

world

of

transformative

possibilities,

potentiallyrevolutionising

the

way

institutions

operate.1

The

advantages

offered

by

AI

are

indeed

toopromising

to

ignore.

AI

can

significantly

enhance

efficiency

and

improve

service

qualityby

streamlining

administrative

processes,

optimising

resource

use,

lowering

costs,

andachieving

greater

outcome

accuracy.2

However,

while

embracing

cutting-edgetechnologies

such

as

AI,

public

institutions

must

also

grapple

with

the

equally

pressingchallenges

of

transparency,

accountability,

eliminating

bias,

discrimination,

and

loss

ofpublictrust.3

Inanutshell,withgreatpowercomesgreatresponsibility.Acknowledging

the

intricacy

of

striking

a

balance

between

these

contrastingaspects,

also

banking

supervisors

worldwide

are

progressively

endeavouring

to

leveragethe

potential

of

frontier

technologies

while

curtailing

the

related

legal,

operational,

andreputational

risks.4

While

banking

supervision

has

long

relied

on

human

supervisors’professional

experience

and

technical

competence,

cutting-edge

automated

technologiestoday

offer

enormous

advantages

that

cannot

be

overlooked.

In

fact,

the

digitalisation

anddatafication

of

the

banking

industry

have

made

technology-driven

and

algorithm-basedbankingsupervisionaconcretenecessity.5

AIhasthepotentialtodeliverunprecedentedefficiency

and

enhanced

cognitive

capabilities,

resulting

in

a

wealth

of

benefits.Recognising

this,

the

European

Central

Bank

(ECB),

in

its

function

as

the

EU’s

bankingsupervisor6,

has

embraced

the

possibilities

offered

by

supervisory

technologies(SupTech)

as

a

crucial

element

of

its

strategic

vision.

To

drive

innovation

and

explore1

ForanEUperspective,

seeGianlucaMisuracaandColinvanNoordt,‘AIWatch–ArtificialIntelligenceinpublic

services:

Overview

of

the

use

and

impact

of

AI

in

public

services

in

the

EU’,

EUR

30255

EN,(Publications

Office

of

the

European

Union,

2020),

</10.2760/039619>

accessed

15

April2023.2

For

a

literature

review

on

current

trends

and

possible

future

uses

of

AI

in

the

public

sector,

see

WesleiGomes

de

Sousa

and

others,

‘How

and

where

is

artificial

intelligence

in

the

public

sector

going?

A

literaturereview

and

research

agenda’

(2019)

36(4)

Government

Information

Quarterly

101392,</10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.004>accessed15April2023.3

For

a

brief

overview

of

the

challenges

posed

by

AI,

see

Bernd

W

Wirtz,

Jan

C

Weyerer,

and

Benjamin

JSturm,

‘The

Dark

Sides

of

Artificial

Intelligence:

An

Integrated

AI

Governance

Framework

for

PublicAdministration’(2020)43(9)InternationalJournalofPublicAdministration818,</10.1080/01900692.2020.1749851>accessed15April2023.4

Eg,

Dirk

Broeder

and

Jermy

Prenio,

‘Innovative

technology

in

financial

supervision

(suptech)

-

theexperience

of

early

users’

(2018)

FSI

Insights

on

policy

implementation

No

9,

July

2018,

Bank

ofInternational

Settlements,

2-3

and

17-19,

</fsi/publ/insights9.pdf>

accessed

15

April2023.5

See

Douglas

W

Arner

and

others,

‘The

Future

of

Data-Driven

Finance

and

RegTech:

Lessons

from

EUBigBangII’(2020)25(2)StanfordJournalofLaw,Business&Finance245.6

TheSingleSupervisoryMechanism(SSM)istheECB’sbankingsupervisionarm.1Electroniccopyavailableat:/abstract=4430642WorkingPaperVersion(April2023)new

solutions,

the

ECB

has

established

a

dedicated

Suptech

Hub.

The

future

of

EUbanking

supervision

is

therefore

upon

us,

and

it

is

powered

by

AI.

At

the

same

time,however,

the

current

journey

towards

AI-enhanced

banking

supervision

must

alsocarefully

consider

the

impact

of

such

technology

on

institutional

transparency

andaccountability.7

Indeed,

as

banking

supervisors

turn

to

AI

to

enhance

their

capability

insafeguarding

the

stability

of

the

financial

system,

several

critical

questions

loom,

mainly:How

will

the

integration

of

automated

technology

impact

the

transparency

andaccountability

of

the

ECB—a

public

institution

within

a

democratic

order

built

on

the

ruleof

law?

Hence,

can

the

principle

of

‘good

administration’

still

be

upheld

while

embracingautomationinbankingsupervision?Notably,

the

concept

of

good

administration

represents

the

constitutionalbackbone

of

good

governance

in

public

service.8

Good

administration

encompasses

legalprinciples

and

values

such

as

transparency,

accountability,

impartiality,

and

respect

forfundamentalrights,amongothers.9

Italsoservesasaguidinglighttoensureethicalandhuman-centred

behaviour

in

public

administration.10

Traditionally,

good

administration

ismeant

to

constrain

human

officials’

behaviour

to

limit

the

use

of

arbitrary

power

anddiscretion,

thus

keeping

their

actions

and

decisions

within

the

legal

boundaries

of

theirinstitutional

mandate.11

But,

with

the

integration

of

AI

into

administrative

procedures,

thereis

now

a

pressing

need

to

re-evaluate

the

legal

significance

and

scope

application

of

goodadministration

given

the

challenges

raised

by

digitalisation.12

Particularly,

while

AI

canbring

more

rationality

and

fairness

to

public

services

by

limiting,

for

instance,

human7

The

interest

and

support

for

this

study

by

the

ECB

through

its

Legal

Research

Programme

2022

is

a

clearindicationof

thegrowingrecognitionof

thesepressingissuesat

theinstitutionallevelandisundoubtedlyapositivestepforward.8

See

Council

of

Europe,

‘Recommendation

CM/Rec(2007)7

of

the

Committee

of

Ministers

to

memberstatesongoodadministration’[2007],</16807096b9>

accessed15April2023.9

To

note,

the

concepts

of

‘good

administration’

and

‘good

governance’

are

often

used

interchangeably.

Onthe

scope

of

good

administration

and

its

role

to

promote

good

governance

in

public

services,

see

ThierryTanquerel,

‘Good

Administration

at

the

service

of

good

governance:

safeguarding

individual

rights

andimplementing

democratic

decisions’

(2008)

Report

presented

at

the

European

conference

‘In

Pursuit

ofGood

Administration’,

Warsaw,

29-30

November

2007,

DA/ba/Conf

(2007)

6

e,

<https://www.uni-speyer.de/fileadmin/Lehrstuehle/Stelkens/Paneuropean_Principles/1DA-ba-Conf__2007__6_e_-_T._Tanquerel.pdf>accessed15April2023.10

See

Joana

Mendes,

‘Good

Administration

in

EU

Law

and

the

European

Code

of

Good

AdministrativeBehaviour’

(2009)

EUI

Working

Papers,

Law

09/2009,

3-10,

</1814/12101>

accessed15April2023.11

Eg,

Juli

Ponce,

‘Good

Administration

and

Administrative

Procedures’

(2005)

12(2)

Indiana

Journal

ofGlobalLegalStudies551,554-556.12

See,

eg,

Lenka

Jančová

and

Meenakshi

Fernandes,

‘Digitalisation

and

administrative

law:

Europeanadded

value

assessment’

(2022)

European

Parliamentary

Research

Service,

PE

730.350,<https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2022/730350/EPRS_STU(2022)730350_EN.pdf>accessed15April2022.2Electroniccopyavailableat:/abstract=4430642WorkingPaperVersion(April2023)biases

and

undue

discretion,13

it

can

also

threaten

institutional

accountability

if

notdeveloped,

used,

and

maintained

properly,

leading

to

potential

maladministration

andabusesbyAI-poweredofficials.14All

these

developments

have

undoubtedly

aroused

growing

scholarly

interest.

Onone

hand,

an

emerging

body

of

literature

is

interested

in

understanding

the

legalimplications

of

the

concept

of

good

administration

for

independent

public

authorities

suchas

modern

central

banks.15

On

the

other

hand,

legal

scholars

are

investigating

thechallenges

that

AI

and

automated

decision-making

(ADM)

pose

for

publicadministrations.16

Our

aim

is

to

bridge

these

two

areas

by

examining

how

AI

affects

goodadministration

in

the

context

of

EU

prudential

banking

supervision.

In

doing

so,

this

paperis

organised

as

follows.

In

Section

II,

we

delve

into

the

current

state

of

adoption

ofSupTech

tools,

with

a

particular

emphasis

on

AI/ML-based

solutions,

by

the

ECB

with

theSingle

Supervisory

Mechanism

(SSM).

Moving

to

Section

III,we

examine

the

concept

ofgood

administration

in

EU

public

law

and

discuss

the

ethical

and

legal

responsibilities

ofthe

ECB

to

uphold

good

administration

standards

in

banking

supervision.

Building

on

thisfoundation,Section

IV

considers

the

implications

of

AI-enhanced

banking

supervision

forgood

administration.

It

examines

how

the

latter,

as

well

as

existing

and

emerging

EUpieces

of

legislation

targeting

the

use

of

AI

by

public

institutions,

may

inform—justifyingor

limiting—the

integration

of

automated

technology

into

supervisory

practices.

Based

onthese

insights,

Section

V

proposes

a

normative

framework

for

regulating

AI

systems

toensure

good

administration

in

banking

supervision.

Drawing

inspiration

from

theregulatory

approach

of

the

EU

AI

Act17,

our

framework

suggests

regulating

AI

systemsbased

on

the

specific

risks

to

good

administration

associated

with

different

applications,focusing

on

transparency

and

accountability

requirements.

Eventually,

Section

VIconcludes.13

Cary

Coglianese,

‘Administrative

law

in

the

automated

state’

(2021)

150(3)

Daedalus

104,

110,</faculty_scholarship/2273>

accessed

15

April

2023,

discussing

howcontrolofhumandiscretioncanbeimprovedbyautomatingcertainadministrativetasks.14

Michèle

Finck,

‘Automated

Decision-Making

and

Administrative

Law’,

in

Peter

Cane

and

others

(eds),TheOxfordHandbookof

ComparativeAdministrativeLaw

(OUP2021)657,discussingonhowautomateddecisionsmightunderminetransparencyandaccountabilityofpublicinstitutions.15

See,

eg,

Peter

Conti-Brown,

Yair

Listokin,

and

Nicholas

R

Parrillo,

‘Towards

an

Administrative

Law

ofCentralBanking’(2021)38(1)YaleJournalonRegulation1.16

See,

eg,

Finck

(n

14),

with

more

critical

comments

on

AI

lacking

transparency;

and

Coglianese

(n

13),withmoresupportivecommentsonAIlimitingdiscretion.17

European

Commission,

‘Proposal

for

a

Regulation

of

The

European

Parliament

and

of

the

Council

layingdown

harmonised

rules

on

Artificial

Intelligence

(Artificial

Intelligence

Act)

and

amending

certain

Unionlegislativeacts’,Brussels,21April2021,COM(2021)206final[hereinaftertheAIAct].3Electroniccopyavailableat:/abstract=4430642WorkingPaperVersion(April2023)II.ARTIFICIALINTELLIGENCE,

SUPTECH,

ANDEU

BANKINGSUPERVISIONSupervisory

technology,

or

SupTech,

is

proposed

to

revolutionise

the

way

financialsupervision

is

conducted.18

As

a

key

player

in

this

space,

the

Bank

for

InternationalSettlements

(BIS)

defines

SupTech

as

the

innovative

use

of

technology

to

supportsupervision,

facilitating

the

trend

towards

digitization

of

reporting

and

regulatoryprocesses.19

Among

the

various

technologies

encompassed

by

SupTech,

AI

andparticularly

ML

are

widely

considered

game-changers.20

By

making

available

powerfulanalytical

tools,

SupTech

has

the

potential

to

move

prudential

banking

supervision

froma

backward-looking

to

a

predictive

process.21

At

the

same

time,

the

same

BISacknowledges

that

such

tools

bring

uncharted

legal

and

ethical

issues

that

cannot

beignored.22

Inthissection,weexploretheexcitingpotentialanddauntingrisksassociatedwith

AI

in

SupTech

in

light

of

the

techno-legal

landscape

of

this

transformative

technology.A.

SupTechmeetsBankingSupervisionThe

dynamic

and

increasingly

complex

nature

of

the

banking

system,

along

withexploding

levels

of

regulatory

requirements,

poses

challenges

to

the

effectiveness

ofbankingsupervision.23

Although

innovative

technologieshave

enabledthe

emergence

ofnewbusinessandorganisationalmodelsinthebankingindustry,theyarealsoproposedto

transform

the

way

regulatory

compliance

and

supervisory

oversight

activities

areconducted.24

In

this

landscape,

a

new

game

of

‘cat-and-mouse’

has

emerged

betweenfinancial

supervisors

and

private

organizations,

with

the

latter

leading

the

charge

inadopting

newtechnologies.25

Inthe

remainder

ofthis

section,

we

delve

into

the

complex18

The

term

‘SupTech’

entered

the

lexicon

of

the

financial

industry

in

March

2017

when

Mr

Ravi

Menon,

theManaging

Director

of

the

Monetary

Authority

of

Singapore

(MAS),

introduced

the

term

to

the

public.

SeeRavi

Menon,

‘Financial

Regulation

–

The

Forward

Agenda’

(2017)

Keynote

Address

at

the

AustralianSecurities

and

Investments

Commission

(ASIC)

Annual

Forum

2017

on

20

March

2027,<.sg/news/speeches/2017/financial-regulation>accessed15April2023.19

BroedersandPrenio(n4)1.20

See,

eg,

Organization

for

Economic

Co-operation

and

Development

(OECD),

‘OECD

Business

andFinanceOutlook2021’:AIinBusinessandFinance’(2021)121-140,</10.1787/ba682899-en>accessed15April2023.21

BroedersandPrenio(n4)3.22

ibid.23

See

Dan

Awrey

and

Kathryn

Judge,

‘Why

financial

regulation

keeps

falling

short’

(2020)

61

BostonCollegeLawReview2295.24

See,eg,DouglasWArner,JanosBarberis,andRossPBuckley,‘TheEvolutionofFintech:Anewpost-crisisparadigm’(2016)47(4)

GeorgetownJournalofInternationalLaw1271.25

For

an

account

of

the

challenges

that

financial

regulators

face

in

catching

up

with

market

players

in

thetechnology

endowment,

from

a

capital

markets

perspective,

see

Alessio

Azzutti,

‘The

Algorithmic

Future

ofEU

Market

Conduct

Supervision:

A

Preliminary

Check’,

in

Lukas

Böffel

and

Jonas

Schürger

(eds),4Electroniccopyavailableat:/abstract=4430642WorkingPaperVersion(April2023)and

ever-evolving

relationship

between

RegTech

and

SupTech,

along

with

the

challengesand

opportunities

arising

from

this

dynamic

interaction,

be